4 responses to “Contact”

I read your blog with interest. Below is my estimate of the situation todate.
Roy

Millions Mobilise as Mubarak Manoeuvres
and
Reaction Rampages.

The spectacle of Mubarak on television, telling the Egyptians and his patrons, Israel and the USA, that he would continue in office, and prepare an orderly transition to democracy, shows the extent to which he (and his patrons) have failed to understand, the real dynamics of what is unfolding in the middle-east and elsewhere. They are so habituated to the subterranean world of politics and diplomacy, that they only recognise and value ‘democracy’ when it operates through their own preferred and corrupted systems. Over two millions on the street in orderly peaceful protest asking for what they want is not seen by the Egyptian political elite as an expression of democracy in action, whilst their rigged and ‘paid for’ elections results are. That other political regime, which buys election results with million dollar television adds and campaigns of confusion and illusion in North America, slowly lumbered into gear. It first suggested to Mubarak, that he consider urgent democratic reforms. When it was pointed out to them that this had been the advice offered to him by his own people, and others, for many years, they changed their suggestion to him as ‘overseeing an orderly transition’ to democracy. From this lethargic and self-serving US response, we can gather that peaceful ‘regime change’ by the people in Egypt, is seen by the US elite as a disorderly transition, while violent ‘regime changes’ in Iraq and Afghanistan, by a US-led armed invasion are seen as orderly ones. However, after a week-long diplomatic consultation and international covert communication, Mubarak finally ‘on message’, duly obliged and broadcast his intention to stay in control, on Tuesday 1st February.

The Mubarak regime, Israel and the US hope that if the Egyptian people, buy into such a six-month delaying tactic, this will give them the time and opportunity to manoeuvre sufficiently to save what is essential to their respective elite vested interests. That is to say, the continued domination of global capital and its political representatives over the peoples and materials of the middle-east. This requires them at the very minimum, to conspire to initiate a form of government which will keep the Suez passage open and relatively cheap, which will safeguard the investments and loans made to the Mubarak regime, and continue to ensure the colonial squatter regime of Israel is protected, from International justice. If Mubarak, had stepped down and aside much earlier, or even perhaps on the night of his public address, all this might just have come to pass. An amazing lack of shame and a myopic form of conscience, by this vengeful autocrat, was made clear by the fact that he made no reference to those killed, during the initial stages of the peaceful uprising or those tortured and killed during the extent of his family-based regime. He defiantly announced that he would be ‘judged by history’ which will record that he refused to be judged by many millions of his people and preferred to rely upon some future favourable paid-for historian. Of course history will also undoubtedly record that only recently he nominated his own son Gamal, to succeed him in power. This fact alone demonstrated that he never had any intention of giving up power or the lucrative incentives he gets from his business interests together with the grants from North America and elsewhere. So what now?

What seems to have been overlooked by much of the press and practically all of the political movers and shakers of global politics, is that the uprising in Egypt and Tunisia was not exclusively about the removal of a political figurehead. The removal of Mubarak in Egypt, as with Tunisia’s Ben Ali, was seen on the ground as the key to unlocking the corridors of corruption of an entire regime. It was viewed as the pre-requisite to escaping the savage oppression and exploitation visited upon all subordinate sections and classes of Egypt and Tunisia. The passion, that drove the young initiators of this uprising, and those who joined them, was fuelled by the need for employment and reasonable standards of living, not simply for the right to vote. They desired, and still desire, the right to be fully human and be treated as such; the right to decent, safe work, the right to healthy food, to appropriate education, to pluralist cultural enjoyment, to be free to assemble and express their views. Simply being allowed to vote will not by itself deliver these deeply felt human needs. This will be particularly the case if those they are ultimately ‘allowed to vote for‘ have a pro-US and pro-Israeli open or hidden/secret agenda. This would be a distinct possibility after they have been got at by the machinations of US and Israel, who no doubt will offer help towards this assisted ‘transition‘. In all this diplomatic manoeuvring and press commentary what has been consistently overlooked is that the leadership of the struggle in Egypt, is still provided by young people, as it was in Tunisia. The key element in the evolving situation – at least at the moment – is not with Mubarak, nor with the political opposition, nor even the army. The key actors in this real life drama are those on the streets. The leadership of these mass uprisings was not with any political organisation, neither the Muslim Brotherhood, nor with any secular political movement – and as far as can be gathered it still isn‘t. The attempt by the media and the political classes, to encourage, the leadership of this struggle to be transferred to returning political oppositions, or anywhere, is an attempt to wrest the initiative away from the young people and the masses in the street and place it into the well-worn channels of manageable political compromise. So far they have not succeeded, and therefore the stalemate continues. But for how long?

Mubarak, by his refusal to step down, has ensured there cannot now be an orderly transition. This decision means that the citizens uprising must face two opposed alternatives or muddle an alternative between them. First, they can simply trust these decades-old Mubarak promises, give up their demands for immediate change and return home to the general circumstances, which fuelled the uprising in the first place. However, if they do so there will be two additional problems. First, he may simply change his mind again. Second, a decision to give up and disband in this way will invite a reactionary retaliation. A reaction in which all the oppressive state and thug forces, now partially dormant and waiting in the wings, will be reactivated, to ensure, whatever political system follows, will not be influenced by the mass of citizens on the street. With or without his actual presence, a pro-Mubarak, re-invigorated police force, supported by fascistic irregulars will move increasingly into action. See below for more on this. If successful they will arrest, beat and torture uprising ring-leaders and anyone disliked will be picked off, slowly or quickly as conditions allow, until the population is once more cowed into submission. In such circumstances, many people will be forced to fight back in self-defence and so the situation, will be far from peaceful.

Second, if they do not give up their demands and stay in control of the streets, they will face a need to escalate their struggle. It is difficult to see how physically they could just stay in the street for a further indefinite period. A general strike, by all citizens, with a continuation of the neighbourhood defence committees, would be one possibility of changing the present impasse. If successful, this may move the army from its ambiguous neutrality, into a position of support and they might then be the force which moves to depose Mubarak’s regime, order an interim government, a new constitution, and free and fair elections. However, the army may well decide to support the regime and even in the circumstances of a general strike or any other peaceful tactic, the protesters will face an attempt at a counter-revolution. Indeed, this possibility, has already been set in motion. Mubarak’s Tuesday speech was carefully crafted to appeal to some to split away from the general uprising and convince themselves and others, to await the results of his promises. At the same time, and within an hour of this speech, a small band of reactionary thugs, armed with sticks attacked, peaceful demonstrators in Alexandria. On the following day, Wednesday, such pro-regime groups, emerged, guns, knives and sticks in hand to engage with protesters in Cairo. These were not rival peaceful demonstrators making their point. These were organised reactionaries bent on fomenting trouble. It is clear that a well organised, armed group can disperse a much larger, unarmed, disorganised group at least initially. This turn of events will force, the disorganised, or partially organised and unarmed masses, to increase their organisation, arm themselves and resist. There is nothing new in this Egyptian regime, counter-revolutionary tactic and strategy. It is all predictable. Historically all oppressive regimes, by refusing to change, and arming reaction, have provoked armed revolution as the only possible response to the failure of peaceful suggestions that their rule should be altered or ended.

These reactionary forces, unleashed in Alexandria and Cairo, clearly wish to now provoke a descent into chaotic internal fighting, in which case the army would be encouraged or forced to intervene to end the uprising, or at least severely curtail its mobility. This kind of nefarious activity is likely to be repeated in the other cities of Egypt. If the present situation is prolonged, the army itself will be under a tension which may eventually split it The top brass of the army are likely to wish to maintain the regime and their powerful and lucrative position within it. However, the rank and file soldiers deployed on the streets are themselves in contact with the populace and undoubtedly have their own forms of grievance. This tension can possibly lead to a civil war situation if it is not resolved. Meanwhile, agent provocateurs, and other pro-regime supporters are likely to promote and if possible even carry out sectarian atrocities in order to divide, what has so far been an amazing level of solidarity among different classes, religions, ages and genders. The continuation and development of this humanist solidarity on the streets is to be hoped for and worked toward, for it is the only means to ensure a positive outcome for all sectors of Egypt, Tunisia, the rest of North Africa, the middle east and elsewhere. It is the only means to avoid the historical and sterile political strategy of divide and rule. Those supporting the uprising will be forced to defend themselves, if the army does not take a progressive role and defend the people. In doing so they should not allow this new development to split them into sectarian denominations and create strife among the anti-Mubarak people themselves.

The development of the uprising is now far from certain and unlikely now to return to being peaceful. That possibility was dashed by Mubarak’s intransigence. After discussing the previous cohesion of middle-eastern regimes and their rapidly developing fragility, the very last paragraph of ’A History of the Arab Peoples’, by Albert Hourani, reads as follows;

“It might happen too that, at a certain stage of national development, the appeal of religious ideas – at least of ideas sanctified by the cumulative tradition – would cease to have the same force as another system of ideas: a blend of social morality and law which were basically secular, but might have some relationship to general principles of social justice inherent in the Qur’an,” (page 458.)

Humanist and revolutionary minded observers can only hope that this is the case and that events in Egypt and elsewhere develop along lines that recognise the following. That the needs and aspirations of ordinary citizens, irrespective of colour, creed, gender or religion, are more important to the future of themselves and the planet, than the needs of profit or individual and regime greed.

Remembering Edward Said

“I have been unable to live an uncommitted or suspended life. I have not hesitated to declare my affiliation with an extremely unpopular cause.”

“Remember the solidarity shown to Palestine here and everywhere... and remember also that there is a cause to which many people have committed themselves, difficulties and terrible obstacles notwithstanding. Why? Because it is a just cause, a noble ideal, a moral quest for equality and human rights.”